What good are words when only violence would seem to offer a solution?

I suppose that is narrow and inaccurate thinking. Shaming worked on the Soviet Union (although the Russian leaders liked to think of themselves and Russia as civilised -- this probably isn't a problem for the Mahdi kook.)

Okay, I've found some words. Damn Iran's government, religious barbarity, the executioners and other mental midgets involved, and my sympathy for this woman.

Where are the multiculti types that claim everything is relative and no culture is better or worse than another? Sure, we have Bret Michaels, but we don't bury people up to their shoulders and slowly kill them with little rocks.

Our founding fathers had in their lifetime seen and fought against cruel tribal enemies, such as the Iroquois and the Huron. So they carefully put into their new Constition a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The next time anyone wants us to bow to these insane murderers for Mohammed and accept their Sharia Law, we need to stand up to them and fight.

Pathetic snark, even for you, AL. Obama will be judged by history as the President who sat down and did nothing while the Iranian people were poised to remove the theocratic visegrip that's held them in thrall for decades. It's easy to see why. Since Obama doesn't believe we should hold a leadership role in the world, and is perfectly fine with letting that role erode day after day, tiny cut by tiny cut, he obviously didn't believe standing up and strongly supporting the Iranian people would do any good.

He was very wrong and will have to live with that. Despite the meme that everyone hate us, people all over the world were looking to the US President for his backing of freedom and got nothing but crickets in response.

"I hope they can liberalize Iranian society soon and that their revolution can continue."

It seems that "they" can't, Alpha. Maybe if you hope hard enough, you can help. Here's an experiment: Why don't you hope into one hand, and shit in the other, and see which one gets full fastest.

"But you forgot to blame Obama."

No, no one to blame here, public stonings are just an inevitable force of nature, like a hurricane (scratch that, those were Bush's fault) or an earthquake (no, wait, those too were blamed, amusingly enough, on global warming); like the relentless flow of the tides. There, that's it.

I mean, whatever could we do about this? It is their country after all.

“Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”

"Just because there are big problems in the world doesn't mean we shouldn't solve small problems."

But as far as equal pay for the same work (assuming comparable productivity)?That's okay with me.

Of course, but there is a limited amount of time, money and energy that will be exerted. There is opportunity cost.

The fight for equal pay is just an example, but a good one. I think there will be energy spent on it regardless of the facts; fighting for every tiny perceived imbalance while atrocities like this continue around the world. The same effort could make a difference of 1% in pay imbalance or save a nation of women from being murdered and treated worse than chattel. People could make a difference if focused. They are focused by leadership. We have little of it right now.

What an effective demonstration of the Iranian Establishment's political power!

The strange circumstances-- the language problems, the confession obtained after torture, the brutality of the execution method-- all these things are insignificant when looked at in the frame of global politics.

The Iranian Establishment has every incentive to go ahead with the execution and to not compromise on the brutality of it. The more publicity about it, the better. It sends a timely message to their people that they should not step out of line.

And, in a perverse way, the folks here in America who want to "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran" have the same incentive. Having this execution go ahead-- and having it be as brutal and as publicized as possible-- helps to make their case for overthrowing the Iranian regime.

She later retracted that confession and has denied wrongdoing. Her conviction was based not on evidence but on the determination of three out of five judges,

sounds like the 4 liberal votes in the Chicago Gun control case.

MadisonMan said... Strange that the woman only is the one being punished. I mean, she did commit adultery with someone, didn't she?

There was an accusation by the husband apparently, but no witnesses. really bad juju.

Beth said... So torture works. People confess.

Get real Beth. There is a difference between beating somebody until you get a confession to a crime and using stressful methods until you get facts which you don't use in the prosecution, but instead check out and track back using objective verifying methods.

And of course the U.S. State Department stakes out the high moral ground:

"We have grave concerns that the punishment does not fit the alleged crime, " Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley said Thursday. "For a modern society such as Iran, we think this raises significant human rights concerns."

Calling Iran's judicial system "disproportionate" in its treatment of women, Crowley said, "From the United States' standpoint, we don't think putting women to death for adultery is an appropriate punishment."

I thought it was interesting that The Lord commanded Jews to do certain things, but only the Muslims are faithful to His commandments. And we Westerners of the JudeoChristian flavor are shocked and appalled that anyone would comply with this divine edict. (I would say "and rightly so," but I don't want to be smitten by the divine wrath.) This raises a number of interesting questions, such as "Are Muslims better Jews than today's Jews?"

I say "today's Jews," because apparently Jews were still stoning adulteresses in Jesus's time -- He spoke on that issue as you may recall.

I thought it was interesting that The Lord commanded Jews to do certain things, but only the Muslims are faithful to His commandments.

I'm not going to get into why we don't follow those rules anymore because it's really, really obvious, but I will point out that your bible quote says to kill BOTH the male and female and that is NOT what they do in Iran.

But I’m with the WTF is your point crowd. Are you criticizing Jews for not killing adulterers? Are you praising Iran? Because that’s fucked up right there.

Judaism isn't my strongpoint by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm fairly certain that the issue you bring up is more complex than the casual treatment you give it with a flawed basic understanding of Jewish law.

Unlike Islam, Christianity and Judaism have recognized the more barbaric practices of their forbears and adjusted themselves accordingly. Until Islam has its Reformation or at least addresses its own dogma-supported barbarity, it will continue to be the medieval throwback it is.

Just a few minutes of googling should help you. Start with wiki and follow the source links for your daily clue-in:

Until Islam has its Reformation or at least addresses its own dogma-supported barbarity, it will continue to be the medieval throwback it is.

Were that actually true (and imagine the barbarity of an Islamic Reformation....). Unfortunately, based on what we see in Europe, Islam will not continue to be a medieval throwback because it has absolutely no problem subverting infinitely more tolerant Western societies, gaining some strength and influence as an apathetic and weakening host culture ebbs.

It was encouraging to see the Swiss react so decisively and, now, multiple nations moving to ban the burqa. I truly believe, though, the canary dying in the coal mine will be any country that allows Islam to set up a seperate justice system within it's own areas.

I was enjoying a beer and watching the crowd yesterday at a street fair in downtown Durango. The crowd was more women than men; many of the 20 and 30-ish women were sporting young children and no wedding rings.

One group of women was dressed in what looked like muslim chic - several skirts, gauzy top sans bra, flowing headscarf. As they were enjoying glasses of wine, her several friends went on and on and on about her fashion sense.

Is what now amounts to feminism? Dress like oppressed women in order to be the trendiest of the trendy, all the while paying utterly no heed to the plight of those same women.

I just celebrate the wonderful diversity of our colorful world and the genius of those who insist on keeping it so exciting to watch, so National Geo. And I think FLS has a good point, it is we the unfaithful to Moses who should be ashamed of our uncool judgementalism.

Funny, Alpha jumps in with some snark and then disappears knowing, no doubt, that he could not possibly defend the liberal acceptance of Islam when faced with such overwhelming evidence of its innate barbarity. And then former law student (does this mean he is now an attorney or did he drop out and start his own soft serve ice cream stand?) immediately makes a lame attempt at comparing modern Christianity/Judaism with the Islam of today (not modern by any means however).

Neither seems to have any sympathy for this poor woman nor any contempt for the actual religious practice that caused it.

This is another human sacrifice to Allah. Remember the big difference is that Christians worship a God who sacrificed Himself for people, but Mohammedans worship a god who orders the sacrifice of people for him.

The era of the Neocons, of endless easy short wars of adventure and democracy-spreading using the unlimited borrowing power of the US to finance them and the super high tech wonder weapns - is over.

No more "we owe it to liberate the noble purple-fingered Muslims of Country X from the nation they created". Or rescue the NORKs from themselves or spend a trillion to uplift the noble Congolese from fratricidal slaughtering.

We can't do anything with Iran except cluck out tongues with disapproval. We can't hit Iran without causing 200 a barrel oil and a global Depression squarely and justly blamed on America. What we did in Iraq was piss away a trillion, take 30,000 casualties to see Iraq become Iran's most stalwart Shiite ally and China snap up Iraq's oil reserves.

The so-called "Freedom Loving Dissidents" are a small faction. The Islamic Revolutionaries put 30 times the number of protesters on the street.We were very stupid to listen to Bush and the Israelis about how Chalabi and the noble Iraq Exiles would just walk into Iraq to acclaimation with a little military help, In a cakewalk. We were stupid to listen to BUsh about the noble Afghan freedom lovers now united behind BUsh's "Special Friend" and frequent SOTU and State Dinner guest, Ahmed Karzai.

All we got was money and lives squandered in 7 and 8 years of war...while China and the Russians got the oil deals and mineral contracts, and considerable progress in booting the US out of "their spheres of influence".

Not much we can do about Iranian internal barbarities except mutter. 8 years of disastrous strategy has left us impotent to act unless our vital national interests are truly at stake in Iran. Which they aren't.

Man, that Judeoislamic ethic got stuck on the islamic end of the scimitar, didn't it? Pentateuch aside it has been weeks, or maybe years, since I read about the Jews lopping off heads of miscreants. Or stoning them for that matter. But I guess if they did it two or three thousand years ago its OK for the muslims to do so now. tit for tat.

And do the followers of the Law of Moses still carry it out in 2010, you stupid fuck?

Why not? Did The Lord come back later and say, "That stoning adulterers thing -- bad idea. Just forget I ever said anything about it." As far as I know they still read about it every year in shul. What does the rabbi say at that time? "Focus on keeping bugs out of your broccoli, and let the adulterers worry about themselves."?

It's a thread about ancient barbaric religious practices, and how a woman in Iran is going to suffer outrageously because of it.

We're commenting on how the Jewish people moved beyond those practices to their credit, and how Islam, a more recent religion, has not done so in a great many cases, such as Iran.

There is a relationship and the relationship isn't anti-Semitism: It's the awful barbaric practices of these ancient desert tribes and how they have, or haven't, evolved in a positive way with time.

The Jews and Muslims are hardly the only peoples on Earth whose ancestors had barbaric practices. I'd go so far as it's the same for all of us.

But I really don't know much about my particular ancestors' barbarity, and these practices (plus the textual records of them allegedly being mandated by God in Holy books) of Muslims and Jews provide an excellent illustration of why NOT to do awful, terrible things to innocent people (or minor offenders) because some book tells you to.

It also provides, in a strange way, hope. Hope that Islam can moderate as Israel and the Jews have.

I've enormous respect for the Jewish peoples in most ways. I think they're one of the finest people on Earth and I've emotionally at least, even felt a desire to join the IDF at times (I never have).

I have supported them on YouTube, my Facebook account, blogs, etc., for various actions over the years, including the recent actions with the flotilla.

Very passionately.

I have an Israeli flag on my wall.

I'm non-religious and I used to argue politics late into the night years ago with groups of men at a hostel, staff and guests.

The owner's son and I disagreed on almost everything, except for Israel's right to exist and defend itself. We didn't even like each other personally.

So you can imagine I was very touched when he came back from a trip to Israel and gave me a flag expressing his appreciation for my support of Jewish people and their rights. I did so publicly, of course, in my own name.

I have throughout my lifetime.

I respect and value the wonderful contributions of Jewish scientists (tons of those) and yes, even bankers.

What's wrong with being a good banker?

I've had Jewish friends. I abhor circumcision because I see it as violent child sexual abuse.

Why did I put those 2 sentences together?

Because I am capable of seeing the good with the bad. Just because I criticize Moses, or ancient Jewish practices, or because someone else here does, does NOT repeat NOT mean we are anti-Semites.

Any more than criticizing slavery means I am anti-American. (I'm Canadian)

Or criticizing racism against natives means I'm anti-Canadian.

I realize that Jewish people, and their defenders such as myself, and yourself, have reason to suspect that many people harbour anti-Semitic motives.

And many people do.

But it isn't always that simple, you know?

You can be not only not an anti-Semite, but instead a staunch supporter of Israel, and even an atheist opposed to Judaism.

former law student kept on stumbling: "Why not? Did The Lord come back later and say, "That stoning adulterers thing -- bad idea. Just forget I ever said anything about it."As far as I know they still read about it every year in shul. What does the rabbi say at that time? "Focus on keeping bugs out of your broccoli, and let the adulterers worry about themselves."?"

Damn dude, it took me about 5 minutes to find something on the internet that explained it for you, I did the courtesy of posting it for you, yet you remain willfully ignorant.

Do you ever wonder why people here don't take you seriously? Because you shouldn't.

Box score: Two of GMay's links are completely off-topic: The woman whose husband suspects, without any evidence, that she's cheating on him (wikip: Sotah), and a lengthy discourse on how Jews should obey laws of the civil government where they live -- civil governments which have conformed their laws to God's are not addressed.

The middle link (wikip: Adultery) states that "Rabbinical Judaism" (whatever that is) at some time (whenever that was, but has to be after the time of Christ) put in some conditions that must be met before execution could be carried out, conditions that could seldom be met in practice. The link does not explain how this leniency came to be.

As I see it, Muslims are simply the Scalias of the Old Testament: they rely on the original public meaning and act accordingly. "Rabbinical Jews" are the judicial activists of the Old Testament, and change the interpretation to suit the mores of the times they find themselves in.

What strikes me about all this discussion is how there's not one word - not one - about her husband. Nothing. He, literally, doesn't exist.

There's all this sympathy for this woman - who brought all this on herself - when the alternative is her husband accepting being reduced to a cuckold.

Iran is barbaric (surprise) but she knew the rules - she'd cover her head, so we know she's now devout (now - after she got caught) but still couldn't keep her legs closed.

It's the same crap here: get a divorce before you run off with someone? No way! First betray your significant other - and then get the feministas (male and female) together to support your cause of getting as much out of your spouse as possible - with the "no fault" laws on your side. Mind you: it's not "no fault" - it's the side of the cheater, who gets to have their cake and eat it, too. Meanwhile, the other spouse is personally rebuked, humiliated, crushed, disoriented, enraged, deprived (financially and emotionally) abandoned (by everyone but their closest friends and family) and, at least for a while, completely lost.

By law.

And that's all O.K. in our "civilized" culture.

Personally, I have no sympathy for this woman, or her plight. I am equally disgusted by how Iran handles these things as I am by how we do.

I'm not going to pretend I have an answer, beyond stripping the cheater of everything - including their clothes - and letting them start their new life the same way they ended their old one:

Given your childlike responses here, I can understand you thinking "speak when spoken to" applies to everyone, but you're sorely mistaken.

Might I suggest you read those links again and this time, slow down and apply them all in context with one another. Then apply it to the context of the discussion you seem to want to have. If you need me to break it down for you, give me the green light.

You are conveniently leaving out that this woman is guilty. What's your answer? Oh yea: defend her right to do wrong. I may not agree with her punishment but I didn't invent it, either. Like I said, she knew the rules.

And it's not Yoga, per say, that gets me, but the actions people engage in once they accept the beliefs that go along with certain practices. It's not enough for Yoga people to do their stretches. No, they also have to lie, attack the country, demand we go organic, insist we fight global warming, recycle, and whatever else pops into (or is inserted into) their wooly little minds once they start along "the path". Insert Al Gore, Rielle Hunter, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and the rest of our cast of less famous, but equally-repulsive others, here.

GMay,

I didn't say I approve. I said I could give a damn for people who betray others and then look to me for sympathy once they're caught and have to face the music. It ain't coming.

For the record, I ain't a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali for the same reason. I've attempted to explain my thoughts about her in more detail here, but the truth is she now strikes me as this Iranian woman does:

Someone who doesn't give a damn about anyone but herself, and is attempting to use my passion for "the good" for her own ends.

You can play the patsy for these people - defending wrong - all you want.

She lives in Iran. She knew the rules (and so do you, or are you defending her adultery?) then, she went and did it anyway.

What am I missing here?

You seem to think the wrong that comes after hers allows her some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card. I don't. I mean, she wouldn't be in her current predicament if she hadn't betrayed her husband. She did it. She caused anything and everything that's happening to her. If she has to take her lumps now (pun intended) then that's on her - not me. Like I said, I will not defend people who do wrong. Obviously, you will.

It may sound bizarre to you, but then, Bruce Springsteen sounds bizarre to me as well.

Any assertion that she is guilty because she confessed after receiving 99 lashes, she is therefore guilty, is absurd.

That is the first problem with your position. In effect, you believe those who crack under torture should be punished for whatever the torturer decides they are guilty of.

But the second problem is more basic, and perhaps goes to your own jealousies and insecurities.

The thought that a woman should be punished by the state, in any capacity, for deciding who she will mate with, is sick.

The thought she should be brutally executed by stoning after being tortured to extract a confession, even if allow another man of her choosing's penis inside her vagina, is reprehensible.

If a woman chooses to betray a promise to be faithful, then by all means it's a man's right to say, "SWEAR WORD HERE" and walk away from her. Even going so far as to accurately damage her reputation by telling friends how the man feels he was wronged (and may have been wronged if a promise was broken).

But to kill her as a result is not any sign of a man's inner strength and confidence in himself. It is the opposite.

Folks, I just read the Declaration of Independence for the umpteenth time, and, still, my favorite line from it is "Let Facts Be Submitted To A Candid World" - a line I used, years ago, to title one of my recordings. I like it because it's basically saying (as GMay said earlier) "Let's cut the bullshit", and it's in that spirit, on this July 4th, that I address you:

I started by pointing out no one here mentioned the husband. You still haven't. As I've said, he doesn't exist. And, to me, this is a crime. I am not a member of the matriarchy, and never will be, so it's not surprising (to me) you find my interest in wrongs committed against a man "bizarre". The NewAge impetus in America is to focus on the woman - her concerns, her feelings, her freedoms - at the expense of everyone else, including those who have supported her, throughout history, as she took that support (including the building of the very world she now claims as hers, alone, to rule) for granted. And this is done through a "the ends justifies the means" tactic that - again: to me - suggests, for any man to agree, is to commit suicide. Sorry but, like a belief in god, I can't go there.

Christoph says, "Any assertion that she is guilty because she confessed after receiving 99 lashes, she is therefore guilty, is absurd." He says this as though adulterers (or anyone else who's done a wrong) run around confessing their betrayals freely - they don't. They do it under duress, usually questioning, but this is Iran. Still, there's no suggestion this woman is innocent. Even you don't suggest it. You merely don't like her punishment. I've already stated I don't either, but - clearly, unlike you - I am not a child, take betrayal seriously, and think punishment is correct when deserved. That she brought this on herself, for an avoidable crime, makes it even more so. I feel the same way about Al Gore's current troubles. Fuck these people. As I've said, I'm all for stripping them of everything. That others are for more extreme measures, however distasteful, doesn't require me to defend the wrongdoer, but to state my alternative, which I have. In our own society, under the matriarchy, I see we allow all manner of wrong to go unpunished, and it disgusts me, so even this, in some way, is welcomed as a corrective to the license, I see, to lie, cheat, steal - and kill - with abandon.

Coming from South Central, Los Angeles, I was not raised in a society without violence (or where women were weak) so it doesn't fill me with the same knee-jerk repulsion it does others. I've seen everything, from rape to people being shot, to people, literally, losing their heads. The only thing that bothers me, now, is when people meet these fates without warrant. And I've seen so much of that - since leaving South Central - that, today, I actually enjoy comeuppance.

And, I think, women deserve one.

Christoph says, "The thought that a woman should be punished by the state, in any capacity, for deciding who she will mate with, is sick." Of course, he ignores that I just outlined, above, how the state will punish a man for being devoted to that woman - with women's approval - calling it "jealousies and insecurities", when, in truth, it's having had the experience of police at my door for a warrantless accusation, used in almost every divorce proceeding, to get an upper hand in court after a woman has wronged her husband. He doesn't call that "sick", nor has he started a campaign - online or off - to change it, or to defend the rights of such men. No, instead, he wants me to look to correct a barbaric society by defending a convicted woman he probably wants to bring here to join in the party. No thanks. I've been put in a situation where watching my own ass - for illegal convictions by women - is more important.

Christoph also says, "The thought she should be brutally executed by stoning after being tortured to extract a confession, even if allow another man of her choosing's penis inside her vagina, is reprehensible." This, of course, reveals his feelings (or lack thereof) for the institution of marriage. As I've stated, even here in good ol' America, people don't think enough to get a divorce before they'll ruin their spouse's lives - they "Just Do It!" - like allowing "another man of her choosing's penis inside her vagina" was part of the bargain of him loving, and marrying, her.

"Does everyone agree that convicting someone on a torture-coerced confession is a greater evil than the stoning method of execution?"

The Crack Emcee doesn't. He clearly and obviously believes this is just Iran's method of getting through to the truth.

All his sympathies are directed to her husband, which shows what his priorities are.

I think this laser-like focus on that one and only one thing is reprehensible.

And he thinks I'm awful for not wanting the state to kill a woman for infidelity, or otherwise use the state's power to punish her.

But regardless of who is right in the above contrasting points, The Crack Emcee seems pretty damned certain this woman is guilty, based on her tortured-out confession.

I can't help thinking many people, some in North America, have probably confessed to things after being whipped nearly 100 times. I wonder if they were all guilty, or whether many would admit to anything to make it stop, guilty or not?

"If a woman chooses to betray a promise to be faithful, then by all means it's a man's right to say, 'SWEAR WORD HERE' and walk away from her. Even going so far as to accurately damage her reputation by telling friends how the man feels he was wronged (and may have been wronged if a promise was broken). But to kill her as a result is not any sign of a man's inner strength and confidence in himself. It is the opposite. And regardless, the state should have no part in it."

Right here, I'll state Christoph is a fool. He doesn't acknowledge people lose everything in these deals. Their friends, their money, their sanity. Marriage ain't no boyfriend/girlfriend,..."relationship". It's all or nothing. That the post-60s sleep around culture has tried to change that, ignoring the human side of our existence, like jealousy and commitment, strikes me as one of the most asinine aspects of the whole ordeal (and living with it is an ordeal.) Christoph's call IS for someone to be punished - just not the wrongdoer. They walk away free, with at least half of everything, while whoever was wronged is left swearing - probably to themselves on a street corner.

Look around and you'll find many examples of Christoph's ideal.

And for the record: when my divorce went down, I had many offers to have my wife killed - more than I ever imagined - with no state intervention whatsoever. I turned it down, every time. As we all know, the result was my wife went on, with her goofy female-supported ideas, to not only break up our marriage but to kill three people. I think about that a lot.

"Does everyone agree that convicting someone on a torture-coerced confession is a greater evil than the stoning method of execution?

Does everyone agree that convicting someone on a torture-coerced confession is a greater evil than giving the death penalty for adultery?"

You're not even asking if the truth is revealed - just about how it came out. No, I don't mind torture-coerced confessions if it's the truth. (You never heard me crying over waterboarding.) Where I come from, people discover the truth by hitting you in the foot with a ball-peen hammer. One of my foster father's, who liked to hang with a shady crowd, died with divots in his head the size of golfballs.

Y'all have been coddled. That's the difference between you and I, I think:

The reality is a certain degree of sexual non-monogamy is a natural adaptive traits shared by all mammals (and many other animals, so far as we know) as a reproductive strategy to introduce genetic variability into a population and outproduce other, competing populations.

However, so is murdering one's spouse if the spouse is caught.

So just because something is natural, has little to do with whether it is socially acceptable.

Do I want the state enforcing death penalties, brutally inflicted, for people's bedroom decisions?

No.

Do I think a man who loses it because his wife cheats on him and can't function until she's a bleeding pile of flesh and bones at his feet is a mentally weak loser?

Yes.

But regardless.

What is your basis for accepting the whipping of this woman as a means to gain a confession as in any way acceptable?

Do you not see she isn't guilty by any appropriate standard?

Yes, she's guilty by Iranian standards, but those standards are fascist bullshit.

Do you think the Nazi standard of putting a rubber pipe up someone's colon and then turning on the water is the basis for a sound legal system, or any moral decency whatsoever?

One of these days, y'all are going to realize that to deceive - to try to hide reality from others, whether they be a spouse, friend, whatever - is the greatest evil on this planet.

That's whay I hate NewAge: the whole thing is a lie. And I chronicle that lie, every day, because it's such a big one. That anyone has ever went along with it is, to me, not only a stunning development but, in many ways, the most harmful in American society today.

We can't go on like this. And, if somebody has to die - even me - to resolve it, then so be it.

Like I said, I'm under no illusions. The rest of you revel in them. Your Illusions are deceit - and I've been hurt by them - from the day of my birth, which was a result of adultery.

The reality is a certain degree of sexual non-monogamy is a natural adaptive traits shared by all mammals (and many other animals, so far as we know) as a reproductive strategy to introduce genetic variability into a population and outproduce other, competing populations."

So make up your mind: are we evolved or not? If we are, keep your pants on and do the right thing:

The father is irrelevant you culture-obsessed fool. If you think a proportionate response punishment for adultery is to kill the offender, then I hope to hell you're single and remain that way for the rest of your obviously bitter life. And just to clue your strawman ass-whoopin', mush of a brain in - I didn't say what she did wasn't wrong.

The point, which you're more concerned with replacing with your own fevered imaginings is that killing someone for adultery after maiming them is not just fucked-up wrong, it's fucking barbaric.

Spare the fucking ghetto upbringing bullshit too. I didn't get too far into your latest morally-warped, relativistic musings, so please tell me you didn't get back into whining all over the page again. Not getting enough hits on your blog again?

Look, I'm no fan of man-hating and, probably to no great joy of Ann and many here, angryharry.com, for example, is one of my favourite ever websites, and I think he makes enormously good points (perhaps taken a bit to extreme, but nonetheless logically and fundamentally sound).

You'd probably enjoy that site too.

But while I understand you probably had a crappy divorce, and I'm sure, absolutely certain, the divorce system, and society itself, is largely arrayed against males right now, that is a quite different thing from whether extracting confessions via torture and then executing someone for (supposedly) having an affair and, if you have to execute them, using stoning.

Sure, in parts of L.A., and, hell, Helsinki, depending on the company you keep, outright brutality may be de rigueur.

But it isn't much of a legal system to emulate.

U.S. Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment, due process, etc.

These seem to be more evolved (or cultured if you prefer) values than the example in Iran you have no problem with, unlike almost everyone else in the West.

I said, numerous times, I didn't agree with the punishment. (And, when given the choice, I resisted it myself.) I said Iran was "barbaric" - I even said I look forward to the bombing of Iran. I also say adultery is wrong.

I'm just not sticking up for anyone engaged in these things because the punishment isn't one I would choose. You guys seemed freaked out by it. It's Iran. What do you think (or what did this woman think) is going on there?

And my ghetto upbringing is important: like I said, y'all have been coddled. I speak from experience - not theory. I've seen the real-world results of the ideas y'all advocate for,...well, I don't always know what for. You seem insane. My neighborhood went from a nice, lower-middle class place where anyone would want to live - with men anyone would want for a father - to a female dominated, gang-infested, "anything goes" ghetto - that was only cleaned up when the police finally came in using deadly force. That's what I know.

"While I understand you probably had a crappy divorce, and I'm sure, absolutely certain, the divorce system, and society itself, is largely arrayed against males right now, that is a quite different thing from whether extracting confessions via torture and then executing someone for (supposedly) having an affair and, if you have to execute them, using stoning."

No it ain't. I see your compassion for this woman - and nothing for her husband - as being part of the whole. You don't recognize, as I do, how you're directed to think in such terms. I listen to all the songs on mainstream radio now and it's all "Cats In The Cradle" (man-hating) to Pat Benatar's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" - which will get you arrested. Meanwhile, let a rapper say a critical word about women - Biotch! - and that can bring the entire country down upon your head. It's bullshit, and it's everywhere. As a popular video on the web points out, we talk of "soldiers" dying - not men - while protecting women and children is all-important, and no one says shit. I didn't need the video to see it, though, I've lived it. And I don't like it, and I won't give in to it. You, on the other hand, accept it.

No, she shouldn't be stoned. But I don't think stoning is any more insane than the NewAge deaths I've chronicled and experienced - which all occurred in the West. You want to stop it? Then stand up, here, where we can set another example. Screaming "Look at them!" when people are using the same 13th century ideology, here, to kill people - unbelievably asking "What's the harm?" - is worthless, to me.

"No it ain't. I see your compassion for this woman - and nothing for her husband - as being part of the whole."

His wife was tortured with a whip and next she will be stoned to death, you asswipe.

Meanwhile, there's the most dubious evidence in the world his wife may have fucked someone.

The 2 things aren't comparable even if she did. And any emotional pain he feels will fade. Her life will end.

You are a fucking prick if you think there is anything remotely equitable about their level of pain or penalty.

You know, if this guy's wife is not not only tortured, but killed, for a may or may not have happened affair, and her husband is supportive of this, I hope he's mentally tortured by imagined visions, sights, sounds, smells, and tastes, of hundreds of other men's cocks and semen entering his poor wife's vagina, and later on his dick, and in his mouth, forever and ever.

"His wife was tortured with a whip and next she will be stoned to death, you asswipe.

Meanwhile, there's the most dubious evidence in the world his wife may have fucked someone.

The 2 things aren't comparable even if she did. And any emotional pain he feels will fade. Her life will end.

You are a fucking prick if you think there is anything remotely equitable about their level of pain or penalty."

Can't you read? I never said it was equitable - I said it's insane.

"You know, if this guy's wife is not not only tortured, but killed, for a may or may not have happened affair, and her husband is supportive of this, I hope he's mentally tortured by imagined visions, sights, sounds, smells, and tastes, of hundreds of other men's cocks and semen entering his poor wife's vagina, and later on his dick, and in his mouth, forever and ever."

He's got that either way - considering the feminist outlook we live under today - and our society allows, and supports, it.

The whole set-up, here and there, is immoral. Now which one can you do something about? Do you? No. You say and do nothing. Men, all around you, are being railroaded, and wrongly accused, with everyone's approval - while my supposedly-partisan ass has defended women I don't even like (like Elizabeth Edwards) and gone after men, too (like Al Gore) for the same reason. I think I'm being very consistent. You, and GMay, seem to be playing favorites by tripping on the punishment.

So I agree: we have nothing to talk about.

But I'll leave you with this:

When you were a child, and got caught doing something wrong - however you got caught: Mom and Dad went through your sock drawer, etc. - did you always think the punishment was fair? What did you learn from it? I'd think, like I did, you'd learn not to do dirt. But that ain't what I see around me:

Oh, and Christoph, it's been 5 years since my marriage came apart. It's fading but the fact you think I should have to live with 5 years of pain so that bitch can do whatever she wanted - including murder - makes my point for me:

In the Let Facts Be Submitted To A Candid World spirit of the day, allow me to reiterate and expand my earlier comment:

The Crack Emcee is a SWPL version of Lonewacko.

They each have a trigger group that throws them into irrational fits of rage (women; the tea party).

They are each offended when people express opinions that differ from theirs, and dive right into personal attacks against anyone who rejects their revealed truths.

They each demonstrate a shallow and vapid underlying philosophy: Lonewacko has a worldview based on Wikipedia; TCE has a worldview based on John Lennon lyrics.

They each spam the comment section with links to other tedious rants they've written, as if the repetition of their arguments makes them more convincing.

The noticeable difference between them is that for Lonewacko, people's white guilt does not compel them to go "Aw, look at the cute dancing bear!" and encouragingly pat him on the head when he spouts off his inanities.

"They each spam the comment section with links to other tedious rants they've written, as if the repetition of their arguments makes them more convincing."

Funny - from the recognition of Newage as a force for evil to the Tea Party Movement - it's my unconvincing view that's lighting up this country. Those accolades on the right side of the blog, and the one I just got today, are from doctors, lawyers, psychologists, therapists, former NewAgers, and normal people, who have all seen the light about what I'm saying. Meanwhile, you get jealous and spread lies.

TCE said: "I said, numerous times, I didn't agree with the punishment. (And, when given the choice, I resisted it myself.) I said Iran was "barbaric" - I even said I look forward to the bombing of Iran. I also say adultery is wrong.

I'm just not sticking up for anyone engaged in these things because the punishment isn't one I would choose. You guys seemed freaked out by it. It's Iran. What do you think (or what did this woman think) is going on there?

And my ghetto upbringing is important: like I said, y'all have been coddled. I speak from experience - not theory."

Crack, let me address two points right off the bat. You assert the following:

"I've seen the real-world results of the ideas y'all advocate for..."

"...like I said, y'all have been coddled."

I'd be willing to bet you know fuckall about most people posting here and I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt you know even less about my background. It's these out-of-your-ass observations that make you impossible to take seriously.

Then you float this stinker out there:

"I said, numerous times, I didn't agree with the punishment."

You said she brought it on herself. So unless you retracted that somewhere in all your blathering, you're full of shit.

I'm going to be frank here and say that I didn't bother reading anything else you wrote after that because following your warped points is tortuous when combined with your irrelevant whinings about your so-called ghetto upbringing. Just like you clearly didn't give a shit about this woman, no one (especially me) gives a rats ass about your supposedly hard life.

Well fuck, I just rubbernecked some more of Crack's bullshit that I didn't read before.

Didn't follow that link that ended in the little rant about "following your culturally feminist lead" precisely because its absurd conclusion based on the bullshit concoctions that flow effortlessly from your mind. So she killed some folks - again, no pity from me.

I hope she reaped what she sowed and you learned how to judge character a little better.

In any case...

I.

Don't.

Care.

You can respect that can't you? Based on how you entered the thread, I should think so.

"If you knew how rare what I did is, you'd regard me, and my blog, in a totally different manner."

Nope, I pretty much regard you for the bitter, whining narcissist you are.

The way you use my growing up in a ghetto - turning it into a cry for help rather than a condition of fact - is very sly:

You say I don't know you - agreed - but can you say (growing up wherever you have in America) that you've seen three people lose their heads?

How many people have you seen shot at close range?

How many seriously life-threatening fights have you been in?

Ever been stabbed?

Shot? Even shot at? Ever had a gun held to your head - even in jest? How about with the intent to kill?

Ever had chains heated red-hot on a stove and then dragged across your body? (That happened to me when I was 10.)

Ever had to save any women from, literally, being killed?

Ever had to save a white guy from being pummled by a gang of blacks?

I'd venture, if you're honest, you'd have to say, "no", or "none", to all of the above. That's the difference - no whining necessary - but, if I wanted to whine, I think I'm more justified than you in doing so. I've seen and done things that most men, period, had to join the military to witness or experience - and guess what? I'm a fucking veteran, too, you loser.

I don't claim these things for the pity "spin" you put on them, but because they're true - that's my life. My beef is with the culture that produces such a reality, and you, my boy, are a central feature of such a society - a lame-brained knot of cynical assumptions, so sure you can stereotype me as a "whiner" - by conveniently refusing to acknowledge the three murders my wife committed, whenever you decide to diss my divorce - and think I'd fall for it. That only proves you're stupid, too.

The idea that a piece of shit, like you, are somehow going to school me - on compassion - even for some possibly-adulterous Iranian I don't know whose gotten herself into a jam, after all I know has been made clear to you, is laughable. You have the conscience, feelings, and instinct of a snake - and your treatment of me proves it. You're a jealous bastard, as well. I'm sure, every time someone here says "Crack is right" it just chews up your own puny, putrid, punk-assed sense of your self-worth. Awww, nobody listens to you, do they? Nobody exclaims "GMay is right" - about anything. Even here, you are no one, and you'll always be no one. That I'm positive about. And here's something else I'm positive about:

Whether online or off, I have been - and always will be - an infinitely better person than you.

You know what I despise about obvious dickheads, like you, Gmay? If I had turned out to be another kind of person - someone from the ghetto with no sense of right and wrong, values or viewpoint, beyond what my dick and brains could get me - your ass would still be waiting there, yackity-yacking that corrosive bullshit you spew, trying to win your own self-congratulatory brownie points. (Or are you now going to try and convince anyone you spout that nonsense for anyone else's edification?)

You say I don't know you but, truthfully, I've been around the block a few times and I think I know your kind all too well:

You're the kind of undermining scum that gave men a bad name in the first place.

I had forgotten to mention this parallel between Lonewacko and SWPL Lonewacko. Each constantly insists he's brilliant and that everyone else is just too stupid to understand the point he's trying to make.

(For comparison, here's the disclaimer that original Lonewacko has taken signing his comments with here at Althouse. If you substitute "The Matriarchy" for "The Tea Partiers", it sounds just like SWPL Lonewacko:

"P.S. Past comments at this site have unleashed a volley of vile adhominems and libelous comments. Ann Althouse promoted the 'partiers, causing some of them to visit this site and show the true nature of their movement. They can't present a logical argument but instead have to lie and smear from behind (temporary) anonymity. The partiers have a problem with the truth and have clear mental and emotional issues, and some or many replies to this comment will show you exactly what I mean by that. Don't believe the lies that tea partiers spread; instead, take a look at some of the thousands of entries I've posted since 2002. A good place to start is my topics page. For instance, here's my extensive coverage of the NCLR, and here's a list of my posts about George Soros. ")

Especially your comment where you informed the people who were discussing the death-by-stoning sentence given to this Iranian woman based on a whipped confession that they "don't get it yet", and then "added to the conversation" a couple of wholly unrelated newspaper stories about divorce.

The Crack Emcee said... "They are each offended when people express opinions that differ from theirs, and dive right into personal attacks against anyone who rejects their revealed truths."

Do I sound offended? Christoph's the one who went all "I've nothing more to say to you", not me. I just took a position and I'm staying with it.Sorry, AC245, but you've got the wrong guy. 7/4/10 2:38 PM

I definitely don't have the wrong guy.

You behaved exactly as I described:

The Crack Emcee said...The idea that a piece of shit, like you, are somehow going to school me - on compassion - even for some possibly-adulterous Iranian I don't know whose gotten herself into a jam, after all I know has been made clear to you, is laughable. Get used to it, you fucking sap.7/5/10 1:46 AM

You say I don't know you but, truthfully, I've been around the block a few times and I think I know your kind all too well:You're the kind of undermining scum that gave men a bad name in the first place.7/5/10 2:10 AM

Look at Crack with his big giant e-peen. Child, at 2:19 am on a Monday morning, most people are in bed, so sitting on a website typing taunts is pretty fucking dumb.

The strength of your substantive points, of which there are very few, are not bolstered by your bullshit stories either. You failed to address the big hole I drove a fucking truck through in your lame assed points that were buried amongst heaps of your pathetic self pity. Color me shocked.

You see, real men grow stronger from their hardships and wounds. They learn and progress in life. They don't parade them in a pathetic search for attention and pity, thinking that it somehow makes them better than their fellow man.

You've found a great way to feed your narcissistic supply I admit, but like AC pointed out, you're tired, predictable, played out, and juvenile. I'm out of here; you may continue to wail against your imagination alone.

Alpha Liberal wrote:That really deeply truly sucks. I hope they can liberalize Iranian society soon and that their revolution can continue.

But you forgot to blame Obama.Yet funnily enough, when Bush was in charge and was trying to get this evil, terrorist supporting regime that threatened to destroy Israel from getting nukes, you libs blamed.... Bush! Bush was being a bully. Iran needed these weapons to protect itself from Bush's belligerence. If they weren't provoked by Bush the evil unilateral cowboy they wouldn't have had to get nukes to defend themselves. Sounds like there was someone trying to hold this evil regime to account, and it wasn't you liberals. In fact, as per usual, liberal sentiment acted as the impediment to America imposing tougher standards on the regime, thus empowering the regime to grow stronger. Libs are always there to act as human shields to totalitarian regimes (either physically or rhetorically) most especially when Republicans are in the white house.

Former Law Student said:As I see it, Muslims are simply the Scalias of the Old Testament: they rely on the original public meaning and act accordingly. "Rabbinical Jews" are the judicial activists of the Old Testament, and change the interpretation to suit the mores of the times they find themselves in.

We often hear the argument (very often from liberals) that Islam is a religion of peace but that it's being hijacked by extremists. Yet, under your argument it's the peaceful muslims that in fact are trying to hijack the religion and it's the extremists that are it's true face.Would you say this is accurate?If that is the case, dont you think it's funny that so many liberals side with these exremists over the US whenever it comes to our relations with them that involve conflict, or reflectively side with the Palestinians, who, being authentic muslims would most likely stone women who commit adultery, over Israel which is the sole democracy in the region, and which you say is lax when it comes to carry out the more extreme examples of practices found in it's religions. Many libs are reflexively anti religion (meaning anti christian) and attack religious bigots in this country for denying gays the right to marry, yet you then have Queers for Palestine which stand with, not the faux Jews who are so far removed from their religon that they WONT stone women who commit adultery, but the religious bigots who will. So, when are you going to let the libs know that in fact the Muslims ARE still practicing old school justice (ie stoning women) and that Islam is not a religion of peace at all?